NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 23 2022

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JIANWEN LIN, No. 16-72326

Petitioner, Agency No. A089-876-544 v.

MEMORANDUM* MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted August 17, 2022** Before: S.R. THOMAS, PAEZ, and LEE, Circuit Judges.

Jianwen Lin, a native and citizen of China, petitions pro se for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an immigration judge’s (“IJ”) decision denying his applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

**

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the agency’s factual findings, applying the standards governing adverse credibility determinations under the REAL ID Act. Shrestha v. Holder, 590 F.3d 1034, 1039- 40 (9th Cir. 2010). We deny the petition for review.

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s adverse credibility determination based on inconsistencies between his testimony and documentary evidence regarding his work history and his arrest, and his demeanor. See id. at 1048 (adverse credibility determination reasonable under “the totality of circumstances”); see also Manes v. Sessions, 875 F.3d 1261, 1263, 1264 (9th Cir. 2017) (inconsistency between petitioner’s testimony and the documentary evidence supports adverse credibility determination; agency’s demeanor finding supported where IJ provided “specific, first-hand observations”). Lin’s explanations do not compel a contrary conclusion. See Lata v. INS, 204 F.3d 1241, 1245 (9th Cir. 2000). In the absence of credible testimony, in this case, Lin’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail. See Farah v. Ashcroft, 348 F.3d 1153, 1156 (9th Cir. 2003).

In light of this disposition, we need not reach Lin’s remaining contentions regarding the merits of his applications. See Simeonov v. Ashcroft, 371 F.3d 532, 538 (9th Cir. 2004) (courts and agencies are not required to decide issues unnecessary to the results they reach).

2 16-72326

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of Lin’s CAT claim because it was based on the same evidence found not credible, and he does not point to any other record evidence that compels the conclusion that it is more likely than not he would be tortured by or with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to China. See Shrestha, 590 F.3d at 1048-49.

We do not consider the materials Lin references in his opening brief that are not part of the administrative record. See Fisher v. INS, 79 F.3d 955, 963-64 (9th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The temporary stay of removal remains in place until the issuance of the mandate.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

3 16-72326